The PRMS office is responsible for overseeing the protocol review process which is undertaken by the PRMS Committee. These responsibilities include administrative and record keeping tasks associated with this process. The PRMS office is in addition responsible for reviews of accrual and scientific progress of all approved and activated protocols. This process requires a yearly audit for accrual and scientific progress and comparison with planned accrual, review of these findings with the Associate Director for Clinical Research and the PRMS Committee, and evaluation of the replies from the Pi's with the Associate Director for Clinical Research. The PRMS Committee - The Protocol Review and Monitoring System operational in the UAB Cancer Center utilizes the PRMS Committee to provide peer-review and approval-disapproval recommendations. The PRMS Committee provides scientific evaluation of proposed clinical trials, establishment of research priorities appropriate to the Center's scientific resources and patient populations and monitors the status and progress of all active protocols. Our clinical research activities are broad in scope, but priority is given to Cancer Center faculty initiated trials and innovative translational research protocols. The formal charge to the PRMS Committee is summarized as follows: Review all cancer related protocols which will be undertaken at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and make recommendations regarding scientific quality, feasibility, consistency of the protocol with Cancer Center objectives, and existence of competing studies. Based upon the above considerations provide recommendations regarding approval (with or without modifications) or disapproval. Progress Report - In this funding period the number of protocols reviewed each year has increased by 42%. To facilitate review of this increased number of studies the PRMS Committee meets twice rather than once monthly in two Boards. In the last reporting period (3/1/03 to 2/28/04), 74 protocols were reviewed for scientific merit and 25 for priority only (National Protocols); 21 protocols were institutional, 5 other peer-reviewed and 47 were pharmaceutical. Of the protocols reviewed for scientific merit, 26% were approved as written, 46% required minor revision, 26% major revision and 2% were disapproved. In the last reporting period, we undertook 51 reviews for accrual and scientific progress: 68% were approved for continuation, 20% were placed on probation and 12% were closed for inadequate progress.